Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37691809›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Relational memory weakness in autism despite the use of a controlled encoding task.

Greta N Minor, Deborah E Hannula, Andrew Gordon, J Daniel Ragland, Ana-Maria Iosif, Marjorie Solomon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Greta N MinorDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Deborah E HannulaDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Andrew GordonDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
J Daniel RaglandDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Ana-Maria IosifDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Marjorie SolomonDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
University of California, Davis · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recent work challenged past findings that documented relational memory impairments in autism. Previous studies often relied solely on explicit behavioral responses to assess relational memory integrity, but successful performance on behavioral tasks may rely on other cognitive abilities (e.g., executive functioning) that are impacted in some autistic individuals. Eye-tracking tasks do not require explicit behavioral responses, and, further, eye movements provide an indirect measure of memory. The current study examined whether memory-specific viewing patterns toward scenes differ between autistic and non-autistic individuals. Methods: Using a long-term memory paradigm that equated for complexity between item and relational memory tasks, participants studied a series of scenes. Following the initial study phase, scenes were re-presented, accompanied by an orienting question that directed participants to attend to either features of an item (i.e., in the item condition) or spatial relationships between items (i.e., in the relational condition) that might be subsequently modified during test. At test, participants viewed scenes that were unchanged (i.e., repeated from study), scenes that underwent an "item" modification (an exemplar switch) or a "relational" modification (a location switch), and scenes that had not been presented before. Eye movements were recorded throughout. Results: During study, there were no significant group differences in viewing directed to regions of scenes that might be manipulated at test, suggesting comparable processing of scene details during encoding. However, there was a group difference in explicit recognition accuracy for scenes that underwent a relational change. Marginal group differences in the expression of memory-based viewing effects during test for relational scenes were consistent with this behavioral outcome, particularly when analyses were limited to scenes recognized correctly with high confidence. Group differences were also evident in correlational analyses that examined the association between study phase viewing and recognition accuracy and between performance on the Picture Sequence Memory Test and recognition accuracy. Discussion: Together, our findings suggest differences in the integrity of relational memory representations and/or in the relationships between subcomponents of memory in autism.

Indexed as

ASDautismepisodic memoryeye trackingrelational memory

Identifiers

PMID37691809
PMCPMC10484720
OpenAlexW4386164562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.